Loading...
2024-12-03 Council Special MinutesEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES December 3, 2024 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President (arrived 5:30 pm) Chris Eck, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER STAFF PRESENT Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Beckie Peterson, Council Executive Assistant Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 5 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Council President Olson (she arrived at 5:30 pm). 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION, RCW 42.30.110(1)(n At 5 pm, the Council convened in executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) for a period of 30 minutes. 4. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION The meeting was reconvened at 5:30 pm. 5. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. DISCUSSION OF FIRE/EMS SERVICES OPTIONS Mayor Rosen introduced guests from South County Fire (Regional Fire Authority) Fire Chief Bob Eastman and Fire Commissioner Ed Widdis. He described the process for tonight's discussion: Council President Olson will provide introductory remarks for context, City Attorney Jeff Taraday will describe the purpose of the documents in the packet, and Councilmember Tibbott will provide an overview of the relevant Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 1 content in the documents specific to Edmonds. Council questions/comments will follow in a round robin format in councilmember order with three minutes for each comment/question/answer; Council President Olson and Councilmember Tibbott will be the primary responders, and depending on the nature of comment/question, possibly the guests from SCF. Council President Olson and Councilmember Tibbott will not participate in the round robin as they will be the primary responders. There will be five minutes reserved at the end for the guests from SCF to add content followed by Councilmember Tibbott's review of next steps in the process. Mayor Rosen explained part of the reason for this agenda item is frustration expressed by community members in the past that a public hearing was held before the presentation to council and their interest in hearing the same content as the council to inform their comments for the public hearing. A public hearing will be held during the regular meeting that will follow this special meeting. Council President Olson said she was excited this day has arrived, when finally the whole council and community are together virtually and in the same room to go through the specifics of what annexation to the RFA would look like. The council chose this as the preferred alternative in May without knowing the specific details and without knowing that a contract with the RFA was an option for consideration. Today, the council begins the process of determining whether, with the details known, annexation to the RFA is still the council's preferred alternative. She is a former certified contracting officer and one of four members of the City's team on the Future of Fire; at this point all become members of the city team on the Future of Fire. Councilmember Tibbott is the 2024 PSPHSP Committee Chair and the City's lead on the Future of Fire endeavor. Mayor Rosen, a former executive, and City Attorney Jeff Taraday were also on the team. Mr. Taraday has been involved in all fire contracts and amendments to the fire contract in the years he has been the city attorney. Council President Olson continued, this team has been completely immersed in this subject for the last several months and she was sure would fail to cover all the things the council and community do not know because they are so familiar with the topic. The team will rely on questions and input to realize what they've missed and will endeavor to provide all information on annexation and other fire options fully and transparently. Due to time constraints tonight, the priority will be on annexation since Chief Eastman, Commissioner Widdis and Board Executive Assistant Melissa Blankenship are here tonight. Mr. Taraday advised his review of the documents would be a high level, 30,000 foot overview of the documents in the packet to provide an orientation before going into the more detailed Q&A. There are three documents in the packet, the RFA Plan Amendment (packet page 4), Pre -Annexation Agreement (packet page 39) and a separate contract in lieu of annexation (packet page 100). He will focus on the first two documents and will not review the contract in lieu of annexation. The Plan Amendment can be thought of as the legislative document of the RFA, analogous to the City's comprehensive plan, but much more limited in scope because the RFA only does fire and EMS and not all the things a city does. The RFA Plan Amendment describes the terms of the various annexations that have happened over time as well as the terms of annexation for Edmonds if annexation goes forward. The RFA prepared a new section 12 to that plan entitled, Annexation of the City of Edmonds (packet page 28), which includes various subsections. Mr. Taraday highlighted Subsection E of Section 12, Transition of Property and Assets, where the plan references the Pre -Annexation Agreement. The first paragraph of Subsection E addresses Stations 16 and 20 and the transfer of those stations and points to the terms of Pre -Annexation Agreement, specifically identifying that the Pre -Annexation Agreement shall control. The second paragraph of Subsection E addresses Station 17 and again references the Pre -Annexation Agreement and mentions that the Pre - Annexation Agreement controls. With regard to Subsection G, Finances, he recognized some people have wondered what, if anything, Edmonds gets that wasn't necessarily required to happen as part of annexation. Under Subsection G if annexation is approved, the RFA would be entitled to bill and collect transport fees Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 2 originating within Edmonds commencing on the annexation effective date. Hypothetically if annexation happens on June 1, 2025, all transport fees collected from transports originating within the City would go to the RFA which is different than the current interlocal agreement (ILA). Under the current ILA, the City would receive those transport fees. There is a credit in the agreement for that. With regard to Liabilities under Subsection G, Mr. Taraday explained there are three categories of liabilities the City has that the RFA would assume on the annexation date: 1) payment obligations related to Sno911, 2) LEOFF 1 firefighters retiree medical, and 3) the City's payment for Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management (DEM) for three years (2025-2027). No exact dollar amounts are stated in the document. If there are questions about the amounts, those answers can be obtained, but he does not have those details tonight. Mr. Taraday continued, the Pre -Annexation Agreement is somewhat complicated in that there are several exhibits attached. Attached to Pre -Annexation Agreement are the following: • Exhibit la: Quitclaim Deed for Station 16 (packet page 48) • Exhibit lb: Quitclaim Deed for Station 20 (packet page 52) • Exhibit 2: Master Bill of Sale (packet page 55) which addresses transferring station furniture and fixtures • Exhibit 3: Temporary Contract (Packet page 59) that will be in effect in the event the city council chooses to put annexation on the ballot and the election fails • Exhibit 4: Use Agreement related to Station 17 (packet page 74). Station 17 is treated differently than Stations 16 and 20 for reasons that can be described • Exhibit 5: Fire Prevention ILA (packet page 87) which addresses payment of fire marshal salaries and collection of fire permit fees for permits processed by the City of Edmonds. Mr. Taraday explained he would now provide more detail on things he thought were significant or things he has heard people in the community identify as points of concerns. He read from Section 3.2.2 in the Pre - Annexation Agreement regarding what the City pays in event of annexation in 2025, "Upon such Annexation Date, the RFA shall be entitled to all Transport Fees for transports originating within the City limits for the balance of 2025. These Transport Fees shall be credited against the 2025 Contract Payment under the Original ILA. For purposes of this section 3.2.2, the term "Transport Fee" shall be interpreted in the same manner as the term is used in the Original ILA." Essentially that section says the City will continue to make the current contract payment for the balance of 2025 even if annexation passes, but that payment will be reduced by the amount of the transport fees the RFA would collect during the balance of 2025. Using June 1, 2025 as a hypothetical annexation date, that section describes what the City of Edmonds pays for the final 7 months of 2025 for its fire and EMS service. Starting January 1, 2026, assuming annexation was on the ballot and passed, there would no longer be any contract payment because on that date the City would no longer be contractually obligated to make a contract payment and the RFA receives its fire and EMS levy dollars and fire benefit charge directly from Edmonds taxpayers. Mr. Taraday read from Section 3.3 in the Pre -Annexation Agreement, "If the Annexation Measure fails in 2025, then, by mutual agreement of the Parties on or before July 1, 2025, the RFA shall, commencing January 1, 2026, provide fire and emergency medical services to the City pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement for Temporary Provision of Fire and Emergency Medical Services attached hereto as Exhibit 3 (the "Temporary ILA")." That section essentially says if the City puts annexation on the ballot and the election fails, there is an attachment, Exhibit 3, Temporary ILA, which would potentially become the terms of the contract in 2027. It is a potential due to the phrase, "by mutual agreement of the parties." Mr. Taraday continued, in other words, the City of Edmonds does not have an automatic right to those terms in the event the election fails; it is essentially a pre -negotiated contract, but at the end of the day both sides have an opportunity to confirm they are willing to agree to those terms. For example, if there is an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 3 election in April and hypothetically the election fails, there would be a short window of time in May and June 2025 for the City and the RFA to decide if the terms of that temporary contract are acceptable for the purposes of the next year. It is intended to be a short term agreement. The City's team asked for that to be a unilateral option of the City and the RFA would not do that. The City team wanted it to be solely the City's decision to exercise the option for a temporary agreement, but that ultimately was not agreed to by the RFA and instead the mutual agreement clause was used. The parties would have until July 1, 2025 to make that decision; there are no guarantees that those in fact would be the contract terms. Mr. Taraday read from Section 4, "On the date that the City annexes into the RFA, the City shall transfer title to the following property and assets and, as soon as practicable, transfer them to the RFA in an "as is, where is" condition:" Stations 16 and 20 — there is no payment for these transfers. Reasonable minds can differ whether that is a good or bad thing, but no city that has entered the RFA via annexation was compensated for their stations so Edmonds was being treated the same as other cities who are part of the RFA. Mr. Taraday referred to Exhibit Ia, the Quitclaim Deed for Station 16, noting the language is the same for Station 20. He paraphrased key language at the end of the deed, In the event the RFA ceases to operate the Property as an Active Fire Station, title and ownership of the Property shall revert to City of Edmonds upon payment of fair market value, reduced by the fair market value of the property on the date of the City's annexation as annually adjusted by inflation. He summarized, should the City be in a position to buy the stations back at some point in the future, the City would only pay for improvements made to the stations by the RFA because equity is established by an appraisal and whatever the equity is established at increases over time by the CPI-U. If at some point the City wants to buy back the stations and hypothetically the RFA has made no improvements, unless real estate inflation was dramatically different than CPI-U inflation, there should not be any payment due. On the other hand, if the RFA builds a new fire station that costs millions of dollars on one of those properties, it's reasonable to expect that the RFA be compensated for that investment. He commented this was a reasonable provision, there are others he did not feel were reasonable. Mr. Taraday referred to Exhibit 3, Temporary Agreement, that could potential take effect in the event the council puts annexation on the ballot and annexation fails and the Temporary Agreement takes effect. He paraphrased Section 11.3, If this Agreement is terminated for any reason other than the annexation of the City into the RFA the City and RFA agree to the following disposition of assets and equipment upon termination. He referred to Section 11.3.1.c, RFA Owned Rolling Stock, explaining all the RFA rolling stock used in the City of Edmonds is RFA owed rolling stock. Section 11.3. Lc states: "The City may, with the concurrence of the RFA, purchase any rolling stock owned by the RFA which is stationed at the City Fire Station. Such purchase shall be at fair market value." He did not feel this was a reasonable provision and was frankly one of the most contentious points of the negotiation. This provision significantly increases the uncertainty and expense of the City ever being able to restart its own fire department. Mr. Taraday continued, for those interested in the potential of the City restarting its own fire department, this provision is a problem. There is a significant wait time to order new rolling stock from the factory; this provision requires the City seek concurrence from the RFA to purchase fire engines and aid cars as well as payment of fair market value. The reason this is controversial is it is a significant change from the language in the current ILA. In the current ILA, Section 11.7.1, Purchase Back Rolling Stock, reads "All rolling stock in use by the District at the City fire stations at the time of termination shall be purchased back at a price that considers the fair market value of the asset and adjustments to the fair market value that would be fair and equitable including City contributions to apparatus replacement." The City has been making contributions to apparatus replacement for the last 14-15 years. The weight he placed on that should be mitigated or adjusted based on councilmembers' own sense of whether they wanted to operate the City's Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 4 own fire department again. It is completely irrelevant if the City does not want to operate its own fire department again. Council President Olson added the teams at the table had gotten to point where all the other documents were mutually agreed upon, and this was the one exception. Conversations have continued with the RFA since this was included in the packet. Mr. Taraday referred to Ext A (packet page 70) related to the contract payment and establishing a formula for determining the contract payment using three components, 1) the RFA levy rate for 2025 and collected in 2026 (currently unknown) X the City's assessed value (currently unknown), 2) RFA EMS Levy rate for 2025 and collected in 2026, and 3) the amount generated by applying the RFA benefit charge formula within the City. Certain assumptions have to be made about what the City's assessed value will be next year as well as RFA levy rates. Anyone who looks at this and says they know what the contract payment will be in 2026 is not truthful because it is an unknowable number. His estimate, using certain assumptions such as a 3% growth in the City's AV and other things, was $20.7M. He has also heard $19M mentioned. No one knows the exact amount, but it will be a lot different than what the City is paying now. Mr. Taraday referred to the Station 17 Agreement, noting Station 17 is not being transferred, it is essentially a rent-free lease and if it were ever transferred, there would be the same reversion language where the City could buy it back with the same equity. He referred to Exhibit 5, agreement related to fire code official services, which is non -controversial agreement. Councilmember Tibbott said he planned to spend time on Section 12 of the RFA Plan Amendment, but Mr. Taraday did a good job providing an overview. He emphasized there are statements specific to the City of Edmonds in that Amendment, however, the RFA is also obligated to be fair to all the cities in RFA, so the amendments related to other cities in the RFA are either identical or almost the same to preserve equity for all the cities that participate in the RFA. At the time annexation is approved, the City would have a non- voting representative on the Commission. Round Robin Council Comments/Questions/Answer Councilmember Eck asked about benefits or advantages to the City from annexation other than fire and ambulance services; gains for the City that may not been emphasized. Councilmember Tibbott responded, for the most part when one looks at emergency services, you see fire trucks and ambulances and think that is the extent of what the RFA does. He highlighted two of the macro resources that come to the City with annexation; first, the emergency preparedness that the RFA contributes to participating cities including preplanning, resources that are in place in the event of catastrophic emergencies, and resources available for emergency response and emergency planning. A second is their reserve fund would also be available in the event of a major response, the RFA could provide resources, pay overtime for firefighters, and provide a backstop for costs related to a catastrophic response. Council President Olson said the Community Paramedic Program is a very strong program in general and benefits frequent callers that have high emergency medical needs. As a community whose residents are older than the other cities in the RFA, Edmonds has a high propensity of those calls. With regard to reserves mentioned by Councilmember Tibbott, Station 20 is close to end of life and there is an expectation that it will be remodeled or completely rebuilt, a capital project the City would have to bond for. If Edmonds annexes into the RFA, that is a project the RFA would take on. Councilmember Chen said he will focus on the transfer of Stations 16 and 20. He expressed appreciation for the City team's work on this and Mr. Taraday's detailed explanation. Based on the explanation and the documentation, the two stations will be transferred to the RFA at no cost to the RFA, however, in future when those stations are no longer in service and they revert back to the City, the City would have to pay Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 5 fair market value net of equity. That is a double standard and not a fair term. If fair market value is used, the stations could transfer from the City to RFA at fair market value. If the transfer occurs at no cost, then that should be vice versa at no cost. Council President Olson referred to her Letter to the Editor in My Edmonds News today that addressed that issue and refers to the RCW related to transfer of stations. She invited the RFA to respond. Chief Eastman responded the way they look at fire stations is the taxpayers purchased the fire stations and they are the citizens' fire stations. They are designed to provide fire service, taxpayers already paid for them, and if it is no longer used as a fire station, from the fire department's perspective, a fire station cannot just be abandoned, another would need to be built. One way or the other, there is a cost to the taxpayer. In the end it becomes semantics. The reason the documents are drafted this way is it is very similar to what was done for all the cities that annexed into the RFA and wanted the ability to get their fire stations back. It was done with Lynnwood at the creation of the RFA and with Mill Creek. In end if the City gets the station back, the taxpayer has to pay to buy new so it becomes a challenge either way. Councilmember Dotsch commented as things are moving, growing and expanding, if one of the fire stations is no longer needed by the RFA and it is abandoned, but upgrades have been made and the Edmonds can buy it back but will no longer use it as a fire station, the City shouldn't have to pay for the upgrades. Mr. Taraday responded the way the agreement is currently worded, if upgrades have been made, the City likely will pay for those if they have market value. If upgrades were made and they have been fully depreciated, it's possible the City may not pay for those but the way it is currently worded is the City would pay for any upgrades that were made by the RFA. Councilmember Tibbott commented if the City was re -acquiring a station, it presumably would be used for fire services. Councilmember Dotsch commented not necessarily. Councilmember Tibbott agreed, commenting every possibility cannot be anticipated. Council President Olson commented even if the building were used for a different purpose, the new building would obviously be worth more than a 20-100 year old building. Councilmember Paine asked how Edmonds represents its own interests with regard to level of service, contracts, purchases, etc. if the City annexes into the RFA, how does the City ensure Edmonds' interest are addressed. Councilmember Tibbott answered at the point the City was fully annexed into RFA, the City would have a representative on the board until positions open and then like any of the other cities, Edmonds would have an opportunity to put forward commissioner candidates from Edmond as well as for the at -large positions. Edmonds residents have an opportunity to vote for all commissioners. The Fire Commission Board includes representatives from all the cities who participate in the RFA. Councilmember Paine asked about input regarding contracts, level of service, etc., or would that be determined without the City's input. Chief Eastman answered although the City's representative is a non- voting member, they have equal say, are treated as a member, their input is valued by the board and they have a very strong voice. Once the City annexes into the RFA those decisions are ultimately made by the board based on his recommendations. The Edmonds City Council would not have direct control; citizens would have a voice at board meetings just like they do at city council. There is nothing in the documents that states the existing service will continue forever; there is latitude for the fire chief and the board to change deployment within the City as needed. Councilmember Nand commented the council has received a lot of skepticism from tax -fatigued constituents. She will use her time to address their criticisms and educate them on the situation that the council finds itself in. Washington has the most regressive tax system in the country in terms of how the burdens of taxation are allocated. This is primarily driven in Washington by property tax; property tax is capped by the Eyman initiative in 2011, so funding essential services of government, which under the constitution, the general welfare, police power, fire safety authority is reserved to the states who push it down to municipalities. After the 2001 property tax cap, cities were challenged to provide essential services Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 6 without going bankrupt. The state's solution was to create junior taxing districts such as fire districts, library districts, etc. The comments and criticisms from skeptical constituents reflect frustration with why the RFA exists and why Edmonds doesn't have its own fire department like it used to. The reason is because Edmonds got shoehorned into this really torturous tax structure that makes it difficult to fund essential services. She invited the RFA to explain the EMS levy, benefit charge, assessed value, etc. There is a lot of fear mongering and tax fatigue in Snohomish County. Chief Eastman answered the Plan identifies three main funding sources plan, 1) general fire levy which is capped at $1/$1000 AV, 2) EMS levy capped at $0.50/$1000 AV so the most the RFA can charge on propertytaxes is $1.50/$1000 AV, and 3) a benefit charge. He explained the benefit charge is not a property tax, it considers what the property is used for (commercial, multifamily mobile home and residential) due to different fire resource needs for each category of property and improvements by square footage. The benefit charge is apportioned among those property classes and is not based on AV; 2,000 square foot homes pay the same fire benefit charge regardless of AV. Councilmember Eck relayed one of the concerns she has heard is why so many vehicles and personnel are sent to specific emergencies. Councilmember Tibbott commented he was involved in negotiations this time and previously and learned 2-3 times as much during the current negotiations. The answer the RFA staff will provide was one of those insights. Chief Eastman said the question he has heard is why 9-11 firefighters are sent to a CPR call. One of the most important things on a CPR call is good CPR. He was unsure if anyone in the room or councilmembers have actually done CPR; he has been doing it for 40 years. Two minutes of CPR becomes exhausting and the survival percentages drop exponentially with poor CPR. The RFA tries to get five firefighters on the scene of a CPR call and they rotate every 2 minutes to maintain good quality CPR, which is the most important thing. Other things that happen during a cardiac arrest or CPR is ventilating the person, and usually suction which takes 1-2 firefighters to appropriately manage an airway in addition to the 5 firefighters doing CPR. A firefighter is needed to defibrillate (shock), 1-2 firefighters depending on the type of patient are needed to give access for medicine, a person needs to draw up the medicine, someone gets the history and 1-2 people get the gurney for transport. Adding that up gets to 9-11 people very quickly. He was proud to say SCF's cardiac survival rate was twice the average in the rest of the country. He acknowledged it sounds like a lot of people; there is a video on the SCF website that shows it in action. If CPR is done with less people, survival rates drop which is why nine people go to that critical patient. The response to fire is the same, a lot of people are necessary. With regard to the transfer of assets, Councilmember Chen said with the logic of the taxpayers have already paid for the fire station, that same logic would apply when the asset is converted back to the City. If the asset is transferred to the RFA at no cost now, it makes sense when it reverts to the City, it would also be done at no cost. If the RFA makes improvements, that is also done using taxpayer's money. Council President Olson said RCW 52.26.100(2)(a) speaks specifically to assets transferred into RFAs by cities. She was unsure it applied to every agency and every scenario but it addresses asset transfer to RFAs. Councilmember Chen said the same RCW can apply the other way as well. Council President Olson assumed he was referring to improvements, pointing out the City can buy the asset back at no charge if no improvements are made. Councilmember Tibbott explained if major improvements were made such as have been discussed for Station 20, it is not just Edmonds taxpayers contributing to that asset improvement, all the cities in the RFA are contributing to the improvement of that asset. Councilmember Chen said with that logic, Edmonds taxpayers paid for these stations, and now the City would be contributing the stations to be used by the entire RFA. Council President Olson commented the stations haven't moved and are still servicing Edmonds. Mr. Taraday pointed out every other city in RFA did the same thing. Councilmember Chen's concern would have more weight if Edmonds was the only city doing this and every other city got paid for their stations. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 7 Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, or Mill Creek weren't paid for their stations; if Edmonds were paid for their stations and none of the other cities were, it would look like the other RFA taxpayers were making a contribution to the RFA that Edmonds did not. It depends on what precedent was set; a precedent could have been set the other way but wasn't. Councilmember Dotsch asked what additional service benefits Edmonds citizens will see if the City joins the RFA at nearly twice the price the City is currently paying. Councilmember Tibbott answered part of that question was answered previously. One of the issues Chief Eastman brought up during negotiations is national standards have changed related to how emergency response is provided. At the time the City's contract was established, it was consistent with the level of service 6-7 years ago and as those national standards changed, the level of service changed for the entire RFA including Edmonds. Edmonds has been receiving services the City did not contract for. Councilmember Dotsch recalled the council made a change two years ago to the service provided. Councilmember Tibbott summarized the original contract was for a level of service that is not consistent with current standards. Chief Eastman pointed out the 2 FTE that were added in 2022, Edmonds started with that many in 2010, it was reduced in 2017 and brought back in 2022 per the contract. Things the RFA has added that are not part of the City's current ILA include community resource paramedics and medical service officers on shift, addition of a third battalion chief, and additional resources the RFA put in place that occur throughout the RFA service area including in Edmonds even though they are not addressed in the current ILA. Edmonds receives all the services the RFA offers because there was not a mechanism to add those pieces or the RFA chose not to. Councilmember Dotsch relayed her understanding that those items justified the increase in price. Councilmember Paine referred to a comment in My Edmonds News regarding staff salaries. She asked the goal of placing RFA on the pay scale with comparable cities. For example, Edmonds aims to have its non - represented staff at 50% of comparable cities. She also asked how the RFA's span of control methodology. Chief Eastman answered the board is very clear they work at the mid -range of the comps. The RFA uses 10 comparable fire agencies; the last three contracts which were settled through arbitration land in the middle, five comps above and five below either the median or the average of the comps. Councilmember Paine asked about the RFA's comparables. Chief Eastman answered because SCF is a large organization, the comps are other large agencies like Central Pierce, Tacoma, Bellevue, and Eastside Fire. He offered to provide a list of comparables. Councilmember Paine asked about the span of control for teams providing service and the methodology for determining it. Chief Eastman said the RFA tries to keep the span of control between 5 and 7 people. Company officers, captains, are the first level supervisors, in charge of engine companies or stations and are responsible for 3-5 firefighters and a couple have 7, battalion chief is the next level who each oversee 5 stations, followed by deputy chiefs and assistant chiefs. Councilmember Nand asked Chief Eastman to describe the background and motivation for the RFA switching from a contract model to the direct annexation model. Chief Eastman explained Brier and Mountlake Terrace were the first cities to contract Fire District 1. When those agreements were originally established, the methodology used to cost out those contracts was very comparable to what citizens in FD1 were paying. As the contracts matured and as the RFA grew and things changed, what ended up happening was a need for parity. When Brier and Mountlake Terrace annexed, the RFA had an equivalent tax rate of about $1.32/$1000 AV; by comparison the contract was about $0.66-$0.68/$1000 AV. Those original contract were set up on service delivery costing and did not look other things. Over time as the RFA grew, the contracts did not have a mechanisms to keep up with the other needs in the fire service. What ended up happening was there could be a house in the RFA on one side of the side of the street and a house on the other side in a contract city and there was a significant difference between what they paid for fire service. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 8 That difference became so wide that the board decided something needed to be done. That is what drove some of that conversation. Councilmember Eck relayed another major concerns she has heard from the community is related to response time, why is it so high and could it be reduced as part of a commitment to annex to the RFA. Chief Eastman explained the RFA's goal is an 8 minute total response time, from the time dispatch receives the call to the first unit arriving on scene. The RFA doesn't meet that, response time RFA wide including calls in Edmonds is about 9:30. With fire and people who aren't breathing, the quicker firefighters get there the better. As the fire chief, he wants faster response times within reason rather than response times getting longer. Councilmember Eck asked if there was a standard that could be shared. She recognized the importance of having the fastest response time possible and considering all community members when having that discussion including vulnerable people and seniors. Chief Eastman advised the national standard for fire response is NFPA 1710. Given the time constraints, Mayor Rosen suggested the next round of question/comments/answers be two minutes. Councilmember Chen agreed the faster the response time the better since the goal is saving lives, but there is a balance to strike related to the resources it takes to make that happen. Councilmember Dotsch relayed her understanding the benefit charge should allow for lower overall property tax levy rates as the burden of providing fire suppression service is distributed more fairly based on fire risk. She suggested increasing the benefit charge and reducing the fire levy rate to benefit the majority of taxpayers in participating municipalities. Chief Eastman answered the board is currently looking at that and the strategy of putting more of the burden of resource needs onto the benefit charge. One of things he's careful about with having different classifications of commercial and multifamily taking a larger burden of the benefit charge is the impact on commercial properties. If the benefit charge is too high, the City will have a hard time attracting commercial properties. Council President Olson said she has heard there is interest in higher benefit rates than are currently charged. The benefit charge is based on fire versus EMS; EMS is the greatest percentage of calls, 80% in Edmonds. So that reason, the benefit charge can't be too high. Councilmember Paine asked what services the RFA will collaborate on with Snohomish County DEM that are different than what the City does. Chief Eastman used the example of during the pandemic, he did DEM for 2 years doing the fire function. The RFA has a very good relationship with DEM, and fill that function in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). One of benefits of what the RFA has done and part of the RFA's plan for Edmonds to maintain a partnership with DEM allows consideration of how that partnership can grow. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding that Edmonds would have more access to emergency management protocols. Chief Eastman answered an expense for cities is maintaining their own EOC. He envisioned using the Snohomish County EOC and not having mini EOCs throughout the county which would relieve the cost burden of maintaining those. Cities could just have a small operations center where policy makers can interact with the EOC. He concluded there are future opportunities that would be beneficial to the City and to the RFA. Councilmember Nand relayed she recently participate in a town hall with the Edmonds Civic Round Table where a community member asked when they would have an opportunity to ask question directly to the RFA. She asked if the administration and RFA were planning town halls or other venues that would be more relaxed than this format so citizens and taxpayers can get answers to their questions directly from fire commissioners, chiefs and union firefighters. Councilmember Tibbott advised if the council moves toward a ballot measure, there will be multiple town halls and interactions directly with fire personnel. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 9 participated in town halls in Lynnwood when they joined the RFA because he wanted to see what it was like; they were very accessible, small gatherings and very helpful for answering questions. Comments from the RFA Commissioner Widdis commented some questions have been addressed by information in the documents. He acknowledged there were some errors in the documents, but there was still time to work on them and fix any issues and it is not locked in stone. The RFA just needs to know if the intent is to put annexation on the ballot so they can plan ahead for town halls. He assumed the town halls would include fire personnel as well as councilmembers, commenting as Edmonds' situation is a little different regarding the taxation, it would be good to have the city council involved. With regard to the benefit charge, it is a great tool because taxes are based on AV, not the sticks and mortar building. Chief Eastman relayed if the City decides to move forward, what was done in Lynnwood with the creation of the RFA, and with Mill Creek, Brier and Mountlake Terrace, the RFA and the cities participated in the town halls because there are questions specific to the city and to the RFA. He recalled there were at least three town halls in each jurisdiction and seven in Brier. Some town halls were well attended, others were not. If the council chooses to move forward and puts annexation on the ballot, his goal as a chief was to do everything possible to ensure people have all the information they need to make informed decisions on the ballot measure and he will work hand in hand with the City to do that. The RFA can also meet with individual groups if there is interest in doing that. Ms. Blankenship agreed property taxes and the benefit charge is a confusing issue for many people. Having a benefit charge reduces property taxes. With a benefit charge, the maximum fire levy the RFA is allowed to collect goes from $1.5011000 AV to $1/$1000 AV which helps level the playing field a little. The board has historically taken a very conservative approach to taxation, trying to keep taxes as low as possible and continue to provide these very important services. Since the RFA was formed, taxes have been kept below inflation; the RFA is proud to have been able to hold the line. The RFA looks forward to answering residents' questions. Annexation gives residents a direct voice and vote in their emergency services and allows them to have a voice in their taxes and how emergency services are operated. Councilmember Tibbott reviewed next steps. Following this meeting, a public hearing is scheduled at the regular meeting to hear from the public regarding emergency services. The council will continue to take public comment after the public hearing in the form of emails and meetings over the next week or so. He expected the council to deliberate on what they've heard and consider fire/EMS service options at the December 10 council meeting. He did not expect action to be taken about whether to move forward with an annexation vote or a contract until the December 17 council meeting. If the council decides to move forward with annexation, it would go to a vote of the people on a ballot in April 2025. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 6:52 pm. cs:� SCOTT PASSEY; CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 10